Background:
Silva et al. (2002) described a new species of pygmy-owl (Glaucidium
mooreorum) from the Pernambuco area of northeastern Brazil.
The description was based on two specimens, but more importantly
they demonstrated via spectrograph comparisons that the voice
was quite distinct from Glaucidium minutissimum and Glaucidium
hardyi. Morphologically, mooreorum and minutissimum
are extremely similar in plumage pattern and morphometrics, with
overlap in both wing and tail measurements. Thus, vocalizations
are the key for distinguishing them and I believe Silva et al.
have demonstrated (albeit with very small sample sizes) that there
are two pygmy-owl species that our committee currently recognizes
as one under the taxon minutissimum. Until the distinctive
voice of G. hardyi was recognized, it too was lumped
under minutissimum (Vielliard 1989). All three of the above
species are allopatric, apparently with the São Francisco
River in northeastern Brazil separating mooreorum and minutissimum
(see figure 5 in Silva et al. [2002]; I can provide a pdf of this
paper).

That was the rationale when our committee
voted to accept (proposal #32) mooreorum as a species.

New information:
König and Weick (2005) just published a paper that fully
supports the recognition of the Pernambuco birds as a separate
species from birds in southeastern Brazil; HOWEVER, they indicate
that the holotype of minutissimum, described by Wied in
1830, belongs to the Pernambuco species (=Silva et al.'s mooreorum).
If König and Weick are correct then the species that is found
in southeastern Brazil was unnamed. The following English translation
(thanks to Arpad Nyari) from König & Weick provides their
rationale:

"In the 2002 edition of the Brazilian
journal Ararajuba, a new species of pygmy owl, Glaucidium
mooreorum from the Brazilian rainforests of Pernambuco was
being named (Silva et al. 2002). The authors reasoned the species
status of this taxon mainly on the distinctive vocalizations
of G. minutissimum and G. mooreorum. The authors
although, have omitted the fact that in 1830, Maximilian zu Wied
based his description of Strix minutissima on the similar
locality of the Pernambuco area ("hinterland of Bahia",
where rainforests were still intact at that time). Somewhat later,
Otto Wucherer collected in the same region a few more pygmy owls,
of which two (an immature and an adult) were deposited at the
Natural History Museum in Tring (Sharpe 1875). One of these specimens
was loaned to us for comparison with the described Glaucidium
mooreorum. Based on this comparison we conclude that the
specimen collected by Wucherer belongs to the "new species".
Because in the case of synonymy only the oldest given name has
validity, the "new species" of northeast Brazil must
be named Glaucidium minutissimum, whereas G. mooreorum
represents its younger synonym. The hitherto erroneously
held pygmy-owl Glaucidium minutissimum of southeast Brazil
was designated by us to a new scientific name."

They named the southeastern Brazil birds
G.sicki.

Apparently König and Weick did not
examine Wied's holotypes (the syntypes, an immature male and adult
female, are extant at AMNH; see below) and their interpretation
of Wied's description is at odds with what Arpad Nyari and I found
when we examined Wied's (1830) description. The following is verbatim
from Wied's (1830) description for the type locality: "im
lunereu der Provinz Bahia" (translation = found in the interior
of Province Bahia). Note that this is precisely how it was interpreted
by Peters (1940). It is unclear how König and Weick turned
"hinterland of Bahia" into "Pernambuco area".
Furthermore, in Table 1 of König and Weick (2005) the locality
of Wucherer's specimen, (the Tring specimen that they borrowed,
is simply listed as "Bahia". Again, I am puzzled as
to how this became "Pernambuco area". Moreover, I emphasize
that the provenance of the Wucherer specimens at Tring that König
and Weick used to support their conclusion is immaterial. Naturally,
the syntypes dictate the nomenclature.

If Wied's holotypes came from what is now
defined as the state of Bahia, then based on what we know about
the distributions of mooreorum and minutissimum
(again, see fig. 5 in Silva et al.) then it seems quite likely
that Silva et al. were correct in assuming that birds from the
Pernambuco region were unnamed and the moniker minutissimum
applies to birds in southeastern Brazil. However, if at the time
when the above pygmy-owls were collected (1816) and later described
(Wied 1830), a much larger area of northeastern Brazil was referred
to as "Province Bahia", then there might be a question
of provenance and what name should be applied to these species.
Consultation of Paynter and Traylor (1991) does not reveal any
change in the boundaries of the state of Bahia. Perhaps one of
our Brazilian colleagues can shed light on this historical geographical
question.

As mentioned above, based on both Silva
et al. (2002) and König and Weick (2005), it is extremely
difficult to tell these two species apart based solely on morphology.
The number of specimens of both taxa with precise locality, sex,
and age data is very limited (see Howell and Robbins 1995), thus
one must be cautious in making definitive statements about plumage
characters. Nonetheless, both Silva et al. (2002) and König
and Weick (2005) indicate that the number of white tail bands
differs between Pernambuco (5 bands) and southeastern Brazil birds
(4 bands) - note that the number of white bands apparently includes
the spots at the very tip of the tail. Wied's (1830) description
indicates that the male syntype had three bands (=4 if the white
tail tip is included). However, contrary to Wied's description
the two syntypes at AMNH (6345, 6345bis) both have five tail bands
(color photographs provided by P. Sweet, Sharon Kenney)! I suspect
that Wied did not count the spots at the tip of the tail nor the
white band that is at the base of the tail and hidden by the under
tail coverts. At hand, I have a Field Museum specimen (302417)
that is labeled as a male (based on the presence of spots on the
crown it is an adult) from São Paulo and it has five white
bands (including the white tail tip spot & the white band
at the very base of the tail). Thus, based on this very limited
amount of information it appears that the number of white tail
bands may not be diagnostic for distinguishing these two species.

In summary, there is much uncertainty involved
with the nomenclature of these two taxa. It is indicated clearly
in Wied's (1830) description that the holotypes were from "the
interior of the province of Bahia" and the uncertainty in
the value of the number of white tail bands in separating these
two taxa leaves me ambiguous about what name should be applied
to these taxa. Thus, given this uncertainty, I believe the conservative
action is to follow Silva et al. (2002) until there are unambiguous
data to suggest otherwise.

Taxonomic recommendation: I recommend that we continue to recognize birds
in southeastern Brazil as Glaucidium minutissimum and birds
from the Pernambuco region of Brazil as Glaucidium mooreorum.
Thus, I vote "NO" to accepting König and Weick's
premise that birds in southeastern Brazil (the former G. minutissimum)
should be named G. sicki.

Acknowledgments:
I thank Arpad Nyari for the English translations of Wied's original
description and König and Weick's paper. Mary LeCroy, Paul
Sweet, and Sharon Kenney provided information on the Wied material
at the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) and for photographs
of the two G. minutissimum syntypes.

Comments from Stiles: "NO. Mark's discussion of a decidedly confusing
situation persuades me that without more and better locality information
and genetic data, we are best off staying with the status quo,
which in any case seems more in accord with the type material
of minutissimum."

Comments from Zimmer: "NO. I agree with Mark, that given the available
evidence, this would be premature."

Comments from Stotz:
"NO. Unless the syntypes, which are available, can be shown
to certainly refer to the NE Brasil taxon, mooreorum, we
should maintain the current nomenclature."

Comments from Jaramillo: "NO - The data are inconclusive at this point."